Should the Packers have gone for two?

Posted by Mike Florio on January 19, 2016, 10:32 AM EDT

AP

Three days later, the sports world continues to buzz about the epic Packers-Cardinals playoff game. And one of the many questions that continues to bubble up from time to time is this: Should the Packers have gone for two after scoring on a :00 Hail Mary pass?

In hindsight, absolutely. But if coach Mike McCarthy had opted to go for two and if his team had failed to convert, he would have become a pin cushion for criticism in the aftermath of what would have become his team’s latest failure in a playoff game. Apart from the fact that coaches who do the conventional and fail get a pass while those who do the unconventional and fail don’t, a McCarthy decision to go for two would have been directly responsible for the fifth straight failure to get to the Super Bowl despite having one of the best quarterbacks of the Super Bowl era on his team.

Indeed, McCarthy arrived a decade ago with a deck more stacked at quarterback than any team since the Montana/Young 49ers. McCarthy had Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers. And McCarthy has been to the Super Bowl only 10 percent of his time with the team. With only 15 other teams in the NFC chase each year (and with plenty of them not having good quarterbacks), McCarthy’s inability to get to the NFL title game more than once becomes more and more glaring with each passing year.

Going for two and failing could have been the tipping point for McCarthy, providing yet another vacancy after all seven in the current hiring cycle had been filled.

His decision to call out running back Eddie Lacy publicly on Monday possibly flows from the reality that McCarthy knows that he’s now on the hot seat himself, and that another sluggish 2016 regular season capped by a fairly quick exit in the playoffs will be enough to get the Packers to lure a bigger name for the final five years or so of Rodgers’ run.

Considering McCarthy’s potential tenuous status, it’s understandable that he didn’t go for two. If he had, it easily could have worked. Spread the defense out, get in shotgun, and give Rodgers the option to make a quick throw or run a quarterback draw depending on the alignment of the defense.

As Rodney Harrison of NBCSN’s Pro Football Talk said last night, the Arizona defense would have been on its heels and on the ropes, with the Packers having all the momentum and the chance to deliver a knockout blow. But McCarthy doesn’t get fired if he plays it safe, even if kicker Mason Crosby had missed the extra point. If McCarthy had opted to go for the win and emerges with a loss, he possibly would have soon been packing his knick knacks into cardboard boxes.

He should have gone for the two points and I was stunned when he didn’t. But, perhaps McCarthy realizes his QB isn’t what everyone says he is and his running back, well he’s more interested in seconds than anything else.

Hindsight is 20/20, and no, they shouldn’t have gone for 2. It would have been very gutsy, but if they didn’t convert the internet would explode about how boneheaded of a move it was based on the fact that a magical hail mary was wasted.

I can’t believe anyone could talk about Rodgers in the same breath as the great and all-powerful Tom Brady, best of all time, bless his name, amen. He’s an epic playoff choker, soon to eclipse Peyton, who is more HGH than human now and will probably live to be 117 with all that stuff he’s pumped into his body. How many playoff collapses before we call a spade a spade and take him off the pedestal? He’s more concerned with doing commercials than winning games, apparently. Meanwhile, Brady keeps winning. Take away draft picks, he wins. Take away his top receivers, he wins. Take away his top two running backs, he wins. You all are witnesses to greatness, the man-god, Tom Brady. Recognize it, bow before it, worship it!

That would be an incredibly tough call. To tie the game up was miraculous enough, with a 4th and 20 that they converted for 60 yards, and then the hail mary at the end of the game. In my opinion the decision to go for 2 versus the tie is one that is used only in extreme situations when the opposing offense has been crushing your defense and you don’t think that your defense can stop them in overtime. In this case the Cardinals were very fortunate to score the go-ahead TD, and the Packers defense was playing quite well. So yes, the Cardinals defense would have been on its heels, but they would have been on their heels if the Packers had won the coin-toss in overtime and marched the ball.

Hindsight is 20/20, but I don’t see any reason to second guess taking this game into overtime.

If the Packers fire McCarthy, I can almost guarantee you a Chargers-like existence from then until eternity. When Marty S. ran that team, they went 14-2 and 13-3, didn’t win in the playoffs, so they fired him. The Chargers organization has gone straight south ever since.

McCarthy developed Rodgers, in fact completely re-made his delivery and built an offense to his strengths. He’s won a Super Bowl. He has a 15-1 season under his belt. He has the second most wins in the league since he came in, behind Belichick. His season records by year are:

8-8
13-3
6-10
11-5
10-6 Won Super Bowl
15-1
12-4
8-7-1
12-4
10-6

Literally every organization in the league other than the Patriots and maybe the Steelers come even close to that level of sustained success.

I know I can be an arrogant Packers fan myself sometimes, but winning the Super Bowl is not our birthright.

You either have a 50/50 shot at winning the game then, or you can play it “safe,” kick the XP, and go to OT, where you again have a 50/50 chance of winning. With the momentum they had, I would’ve gone for 2.

Do you think the last two quickest overtime losses by the Green Bay Rodgers were top two in NFL history? There might be a trophy for that..
————–
So you are agreeing that they need to fix the overtime rules to be like college where both teams get a possession in OT no matter what? Sounds reasonable.

During the tv timeout, this was a conversation we had in the room. Most everyone thought you play for overtime. I thought the odds were more in the packers favor going for two. Compare the odds of one play with the momentum you got during that drive to needing to win the toss and do what you just did marching down the field again. The packers had a hard time getting the ball into the end zone all game, and the entire fourth quarter Arizona was doing a much better job on offense than the packers. I say they should have gone for the win in regulation. I’m actually surprised that McCarthy, known for heavy inclusion of analytics, thought his odds were better going to OT.

I’m not in the fire MM or TT crowd. But sometimes McCarthy goes overboard with analytics and doesn’t have a feel for the emotional factor. It’s like he has a mathematical formula and if he follows it he wins. And Thompson doesn’t do enough to help build the roster. I think he’s a good GM, better than many teams have. But I wish he’d be a little more willing to make a deal. The window for Rodgers is closing. We should be in win now mode, not trying to sustain playoff eligibility indefinitely mode.

The Cardinals offense was not playing very well, and Carson Palmner survived a few Red Zone passes that should’ve been picked off. The Cardinals were also struggling to run the ball.

In my opinion, the chances appeared to be high that the Cardinals wouldn’t have scored a TD on their first possession (if they won the toss), and with the way the Packers offense was moving it, I would’ve bet they would score on their first possession.

Not everything works out the way you want it to, but that doesn’t mean that you should “do the opposite” (unless your George Costanza).

McCarthy’s comments about Lacy’s weight underscore what a bunch of BS these coaches spout during the regular season. There is nearly zero value listening to anything they say, yet we eagerly sop up every nugget. We’re morons.

realistically no. Don’t forget, these coaches know who writes their checks. Take the idiot in Denver, no way he takes a chance on Osweiller. He puts Manning back in to save his job. they won’t take chances because they are afraid of losing alright but not just the game.

Going for two is right call if you’re the underdog. You don’t want to give the “better” team more plays. To put it to an extreme (obviously the Packers are better than the Bronws), what are the Browns more likely to win: a 60 minute game versus the Patriots or a game versus the Patriots consisting of a single play from the two-yard line?

However, the Packers have been awful in this situation all year. It’s possible McCarthy didn’t have any play he had any confidence in. This is really the only valid reason to go for 1. If I’m the GM and I find out my coach didn’t go for 2 because he’s trying to not lose or he’s worried about blowback, I’d fire him on the spot. Do what has the best chance to win the game, not what talking heads and PFT trolls think.

Going for two should be the no-brainer. Why risk overtime? The ball is in your hands at the 2yd line. What more could you want?
———-
Why risk the entire game on a single play? They only had 3 WR’s and things get pretty tight for an offense operating from the 2 yard line. If they go for it and don’t make it, the coach gets slaughtered. Hindsight is pretty neat though.

Literally every organization in the league other than the Patriots and maybe the Steelers come even close to that level of sustained success……….
HMMMMM HOW ABOUT BILL WALSH AND THE NINERS CIRCA 1980’S——–RECORDS

This article is a textbook case of second guessing, a luxury afforded to the media but not to NFL coaches who make real-time decisions.

Had McCarthy elected to go for two, he would have reduced his team’s season to one play. He chose not to do so because he believed in his team’s ability to compete into overtime. It didn’t work out.

Coaches are aware that others — especially media talking heads and poison pen scribes — will evaluate their decisions through a rear-view mirror, but they do what they believe gives their team the best opportunity to succeed.

The Packers have choked more than the Vikings over the last 5 years. EPIC choke last year and this year. The superbowl darlings of 2015 couldn’t even win a division against the worst franchise in NFL history. (according to Packer fans) (and now some packer fans are already predicting they will win superbowl the next 2 years.) LMFAO

But I don’t think he should have gone for two. It’s to risky. Defense was playing good for most of the game.

Watching the game I paused to consider if they should roll the dice and go for 2 (especially considering how efficiently the Cardinals obliterated them a couple weeks ago), but ultimately I agreed with the decision to go into OT instead.

Yes, Rodgers is amazing, but his receiving corp. is not. And their RB situation is not very impressive either. So to voluntarily put the whole season on the line and have it hinge on an average-to-below-average skill player who has generally come up short all season long would be absurd. Was better to play it safe and count on a team effort in OT (which of course also came up short, but the odds were better).

That being said, it would have been cool to see a team goes balls to the wall like that and go for two. The Packers just don’t have the offensive consistency this year to risk it though. Seahawks/Panthers/Steelers/etc. though? Oh yeah. In that situation they definitely should have gone for the death blow (and they probably would have) instead of risking it getting back into Palmer’s hands.

He’s not a bad coach because he kicked the XP. That was the correct decision.

He’s not a bad coach. He’s just not a great coach, either. There are times when you get the impression the team would be better with a different coach but when you look around and ask, “who?” you come back to thinking the Packers are better off staying pat. He’ll never be legendary but he’s the best they’re going to do for the time being.

Stop it. No way do they go for two there. They scored on a Hail Mary and the smart thing to do is kick the extra point and take it to overtime on the momentum of the tying score. The Packers defense had been playing pretty well and there was no reason to think Arizona would just storm down the field like they did. If they had gotten a stop, they get the ball back and only need a field goal to win. Saying they should have gone for two is really just being stupid and using hindsight based on how the game played out. They had no way of knowing how overtime would go

Can you imagine the PFT article if they’d went for two and not gotten it? “With Rodgers looking unstoppable and the Cardinals reeling the Packers inexplicably risked it all on a single play rather than riding their momentum into overtime….”

Should’ve gone for two. Kicking the extra point is playing not to lose instead of playing to win.

If you play for overtime, you need a number of things to go your way – coin toss, possible defensive stops, maybe a lucky bounce on a fumble, not to mention you need your kicker to make the no longer automatic extra point to get you there. If you go for 2, you need your MVP-caliber QB to get you two yards. There shouldn’t be any question.

The issue is kicking the XP typically leaves coaches free of criticism at it is the safe “smart” play. Now we’re talking about changing OT rules instead of talking about McCarthy yet again losing the playoffs in poor fashion.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise. He showed an incredible lack of testicular fortitude in the NFCCG last year, so why would we expect anything less this year?

Let’s put it this way: if you go to overtime, you’re best bet is a 50-50 coin toss just to have the best chance to win. I’d say your odds of Rodgers scoring from the 2-yard line has to be at least 50-50.

This is the one downside of the new extra point rule. It’d be the perfect time to trot out your field goal team and then run a fake, while the defense is thinking about getting a block for the win. Doesn’t work when the XP is back at the 15.

To all the people saying the Packers offensive injuries meant they shouldn’t have gone for two – you’re making the exact opposite point of what you thinking you’re making. What are the better odds – that the Packers receivers would consistently get open in overtime enough to move the ball down the field for a TD or FG, or that the Packers could have one play at the goal line when the receivers ran a pick or something and got open, or Rodgers extended the play long enough to get two yards? This isn’t second-guessing, this is first-guessing. In the moment he should’ve gone for two, and in hindsight he obviously should have.

Now we’re talking about changing OT rules instead of talking about McCarthy yet again losing the playoffs in poor fashion.
—————
It’s been a stupid rule and criticized for years now. Your season should not be decided by a coin flip.

The odds of winning a game is lower when you have but one play to determine whether you win or lose. It’s common sense. But Vikings fans lack that, so it is understandable.

Yeah, says the guys whose whole season doesn’t hinge on 1 play when you could get multiple plays to get it right in overtime. Fitzgerald just made a play. Stop with this silly second guessing. If McCarthy or any coach for that reason makes that call with everything that goes into a season and they miss it with no time left, you risk losing your whole locker room going forward because how can people who have sacrificed all year trust that you’re going to make a sound decision for all of us in the heat of battle?

Statheads like Barnwell have pointed out the success rates and win-probability ratios greatly favor going for two; however, it’s hard to trash MM for going for the tie given the way his defense had been playing up to that point (not to mention his QB is Aaron Rodgers). Even this Viking fan has a hard time trashing MM for that move — he actually planned and called a good game Sunday.

About the only thing I can fault MM for is having the nerve to call another person (Lacy) fat and out of shape.

packer fans are buying tickets to Carolina, because they still think they must be in the playoffs…..lol at the idiot packer fans that bought 36k worth of tickets at az before finding out it was a complete scam..hysterical..bwhahahaha

I know a lot of people will argue with me, but I truly believe that NFL overtime should be like college’s. I’ve heard all the pros and cons each way. It just seems fairer that each team should have an equal chance at scoring a TOUCHDOWN. The winner of the coin flip still has an advantage.

Kick the extra point – which is not quite as automatic these days – and you have a coin flip that will determine whether or not you start with the ball in your offense’s hands. If you get the ball, you probably have to drive at least 50 yards and kick a long field goal (which might not win you the game) or drive 80 yards for a TD that will win you the game. If you don’t get the ball, you have to stop the other team from getting a TD, and then you have to do more or less the same thing – long march and score.

If you go for two, you have one play in which you must get 2 yards. Less to accomplish, less chances to do it, but you already have the ball in your hands on the two yard line with the game on the line. Why give the ball to the refs and have a chance that you’ll never get it back? Do you want control over the outcome of the game or do you want to hand at least part of that control to chance?

The only reason to go for two is if you don’t have confidence in your team’s ability to stop the other team in overtime. So if you’re McCarthy, you go for two. If you’re the coach of a requisite NFL football team, you go to overtime.

Absolutely go for 2. You are undermanned, you are on the road, you are the underdog, and you really have no business being 2 1/2 yards away from victory. There is no guarantee you’ll make the kick, no guarantee you’ll get the ball in overtime.

This reminded me a lot of the Boise St. vs. Oklahoma bowl game a few years ago. GB had em on the ropes. Overtime and the delay to the restart helped AZ regain composure.

For me it’s simple….every time you get a chance to WIN the game you take it. Kicking the point was playing not to lose.

No he should not have. But should have gone for 2 after first touchdown…making the score 14-7 not 13-7. But that being said. McCarthy and TT have had the two best of the QBs in league history and a 7-6 playoff record with AR(4 of 6 wins coming SB year). That is terrible. Somebody needs to be held accountable whether it is McCarthy, TT or coaches on the staff as well as the players.

The odds of winning a game is lower when you have but one play to determine whether you win or lose. It’s common sense.

——————–

Only if you are accurately favored strongly to win normally. The Patriots won’t ever agree to let the Browns try a single two-point conversion instead of playing 60 minutes, but you bet the Browns would jump at that chance.

More time and plays favors the better team. Shorter sample sizes significantly reduce that advantage. I’m a Packers fan, by the way.

packer fans like to put everything on MM. The defense let your team down two years in a row. Stop giving up TD’s in OT. Don’t blame the coach. Did you notice Fabio jogging after Larry Fitz in OT? Nice effort, all for the price tag of $12.8 a year. Does it increase this coming year?

If someone said to me, “Let’s skip the game and we’ll give you the ball on their 2 yard line, one play win or lose.” I would take that offer- on the road against the #1 seed in the NFC and probably 2nd best team in the NFL.

Or look at it this way- you win the coin flip and likely have to drive the length of the field to win or you lose the coin flip and have to defend them for the length of the field and then drive most of it yourself or…you can take the ball on their 2 yard line and run one play win or lose.

About the only thing I can fault MM for is having the nerve to call another person (Lacy) fat and out of shape.
—————
This sentiment is such a common theme here and it is so ridiculous I’m starting to question the intelligence of our society in general.

MM’s job isn’t to run the football in the NFL. He didn’t call Lacy fat for vanity purposes. He called him out after the season because he knows that it affected his JOB PERFORMANCE this season. That’s a huge difference.

And kudos for him for dodging the questions all season when constantly asked about it by reporters. It served no purpose to call him out during the season when there was nothing that could be done about it in the off season.

This is a ridiculous argument. Guarantee you that there was not a single word said about trying the 2 point conversion there. There are only 2 coaches that may have tried that, and in only very very rare circumstances. To me, there are only two reasons to ever go for two there. Your kicker blew out his knee, or you have a Ben/Stafford situation where the QB cannot throw, but has enough for one more shot. Otherwise, it is both game and career suicide.

MM made the right decision by percentages, yes. You hinge your hopes on your team, rather than 1 play.

Hindsight is 20/20 as usual. If they get 2, everyone calls it a great call. If they don’t, it’s a bonehead call and cost the team.

Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn’t. It is one of the of those things that attributes to ones legacy. If you want to be great, sometimes you have to make those calls and have them go right for you. If it were me, I might have gone for it. I am not, and do not want to be a NFL HC. It is easy for fans to say what they would or would not do, but when its actually you on the line, you might think different.

In the end, he made the best call for GB. It was not the ambitious one, however.

MM’s explanation made perfect sense. He didn’t think he had the personnel to even consider going for it. Considering they only had 3 WR’s left and they were their #5, #6, #7 on depth chart, there is no money person that you can count on in that situation, especially when you can’t spread the defense out with at least 4 WR’s.

Not a pack fan but think MM is a hell of a coach…making it to the super bowl is hard and takes luck…fire him and who would you hire that guarantees better results?

That said he should have gone for two according to the old rule…play for OT at home, go for win on the road…

I detest that it is in coaches best interests to play it safe…I can’t imagine he was trying to do anything but win, but it does come into play way to often…I much prefer the Arians, Tomlin, Carroll, and Belicheat approach…

MM is an O-coordinator trying to be a HC; he chronically mismanages big games and puts everything on Aaron Rodgers’ shoulders. He’s stubborn about his offensive schemes and refuses to replace Dom Capers, whose defenses have underperformed the last few years, especially against the run. TT has also been content to sit back and not make any FA moves except to sign the Packers’ own players.

This complacency has repeatedly undermined a team that should have done a whole lot more in the playoffs with a future HoF QB.

Look, there are many reasons to dislike MM as a coach: the nonsense that comes out of his mouth which is usually contradicted later by reality, terrible play calling, inability to make in-game adjustments, etc… Let’s be honest, the man was a poor offensive coordinator (who during his tenure at the 49ers passed on drafting Aaron Rodgers) who stumbled into being a head coach of a team with TWO hall of fame quarterbacks. Anytime he is required to do anything but rely on his quarterbacks he is exposed as a mediocre to bad coach. Seriously, in the Cardinals game the Packers get the ball back with little time, needing to drive the field for a tie. What does MM call on first and second down? Fullback screen to Kuhn and a running play with Lacy up the gut! Genius. Rodgers ended up bailing him out with two miraculous tosses at the end. My point: there are tons of reasons to not like MM, going for two at the end is the most debatable.

MM is gutless, pure and simple; he always looks for ways to pin GB’s failures on someone else. He also knows that Packer management is complacent and doesn’t seem interested in making changes – at coach and in FA – to make the team better.

So far the arc of Rodgers’ career has been a lot like Favre’s. MVP awards, winning one Super Bowl early with the help of a stud free agent signing on defense (Reggie White / Charles Woodson), high expectations for more Super Bowl trophies but never again reaching that pinnacle achieved at age 26. Now that Rodgers started piling up interceptions this year, his coach is on the hot seat, and his contract prevents the team from signing top FAs or acquiring needed depth, you might see the arc completed when the Packers draft Rodgers’ successor in 2-3 years and a messy Rodgers-Packers divorce ensues.

Now that Rodgers started piling up interceptions this year, his coach is on the hot seat, and his contract prevents the team from signing top FAs or acquiring needed depth, you might see the arc completed when the Packers draft Rodgers’ successor in 2-3 years and a messy Rodgers-Packers divorce ensues.
———
Couldn’t help but LOL at this!

Contract prevents team from signing top FA’s? The Packers were $14 million under the cap for most of the year until they signed Daniels to a well deserved extension.

2015 Cap hit

Rodgers- $18.25 million
Cutler- $16.5 million

Now you tell me if Cutler is worth being paid only $1.75 million less than Cutler. That contract kills the Bears, not because of the amount, but because of the value they get from the position making Rodgers a steal by comparison.

It is difficult to spread the defense out when you have only three available wide receivers and you are missing your best receiver Randall Cobb. It would have been difficult for the remaining receivers to beat their man to get open. Plus having to rush the two point conversion when you are missing players in certain packages due to injuries is difficult. If Green Bay would have had the right players in the right packages and had the time to plan and execute a two point try then McCarthy may have attempted it but suggesting McCarthy is on the hot seat for this is ridiculous.

Now you tell me if Cutler is worth being paid only $1.75 million less than Cutler. That contract kills the Bears, not because of the amount, but because of the value they get from the position making Rodgers a steal by comparison.
————
Yep, Rodgers is better than Cutler, I admit it. But see how your expectations have lowered? Seems like you’re content just being better than the Bears. Well at least half the time they played each other this year anyway.

Tough call to go for two in that situation. While I thought it could work, it never occurred to me (or MM) that GB would never see the ball in OT.

Tougher argument – is Rodgers being wasted by bad management and/or bad coaching? Russell Wilson has been to more Super Bowls than Aaron Rodgers. Either Cam Newton or Carson Palmer will make the same number of Super Bowls. And has been pointed out – the NFC doesn’t exactly have the equivalent of the Patriots.

He’s got a lot of years left and for we know they could end up going to 3-4 more. But if I were a GB fan, I’d be thinking “just when is this run going to get going?”

If you set your comparisons low enough (like the rest of the NFCN) then the Packers are doing great. But by any real measurement they are wasting a very talented person at the game’s most important position.

You do have to wonder if someone like Gruden (who clearly doesn’t want to coach) would be doing better. I suspect so.

Yep, Rodgers is better than Cutler, I admit it. But see how your expectations have lowered? Seems like you’re content just being better than the Bears. Well at least half the time they played each other this year anyway.
————–
That’s all you got? Really? Of course nobody is content with being better than the Bears. It’s been that way for going on a decade.

As you well know….when the Packers not only beat the Bears to make the playoffs, but then ended up beating them in the NFCCG at the Soldier Dump. BTW….they went on to actually WIN the Super Bowl that year.

As a Bears fan, that had to really sting. Most of my friends who are unfortunate enough to be Bears fans went radio silent for like a year.

Russell Wilson has been to more Super Bowls than Aaron Rodgers.
———————-
And Rodgers has never had the benefit of having the #1 ranked scoring D two years in a row. Big difference.

When he had the #2 scoring defense, he won the Super Bowl.

You’ll find out soon enough that a lot of the Hawks success came at a time when they could afford to sign a lot of players because they were paying Wilson peanuts. Now that Wilson’s cap hit climbs from $7 to almost $19 million, you will see the impact when they can’t sign everyone they would prefer to and have to cut guys to stay under the cap. Good luck!

“As you well know….when the Packers not only beat the Bears to make the playoffs, but then ended up beating them in the NFCCG at the Soldier Dump. BTW….they went on to actually WIN the Super Bowl that year.”

And of course that was the only Super Bowl Rodgers was ever in. He needed to beat the Bears twice (supposedly no big deal) to do it.

“And Rodgers has never had the benefit of having the #1 ranked scoring D two years in a row. Big difference.”

I think that’s the point. TT won’t spend to improve his team while Rodgers is on the team. Year after year (except for when he had the benefit of playing the Bears twice in a playoff run) there is always some reason he doesn’t get in.

It’s not Rodgers – he is one of the best ever (no sarcasm). It’s either coaching or management.

In Teddy We Trust says:
Jan 19, 2016 4:19 PM
Hard to believe that the coach who kicked two field goals from inside the one-yard line against Seattle last year wouldn’t have the guts to go for two to win the game.
/////////////////////////////////

I think that’s the point. TT won’t spend to improve his team while Rodgers is on the team. Year after year (except for when he had the benefit of playing the Bears twice in a playoff run) there is always some reason he doesn’t get in.
—————–
Wow. Qualifying everything with “the Bears” makes you look foolish. They were good back then. You should know this first hand after they easily beat your sorry team in the Playoffs. Just because they suck now doesn’t mean they sucked then. Like I said…when your team has to make the tough decisions after having to commit big $$$ to the QB position, you’ll see what I’m talking about. And I say that as a friend of your of someone in the Seahawks front office who wants to see him be successful.

“Title Town” is merely “Playoff Town” now. Trust me — unless Aaron & McCarthy can win another SB together next year, every Packer fan will be wanting McCarthy gone. Soon after that Aaron will be looking to greener pastures just as Brett did. Packers fans win a SB as a wild card team and immediately start calling themselves a dynasty. They complain about their receivers who catch Hail Marys every other week. They call other teams lucky and complain about refs, but the Packers win on miracle plays or questionable Dez Bryant non-catches. At least Bears and Hawks fans appreciate when they have something good going. Packers fans are intolerably delusional and ungrateful.

I sent a reply on this yesterday. I was wondering why none of the writers were talking about this the next morning. Of course he should have gone for the win. You just scored an unbelievable touchdown. If we were shocked how do u think the Cardinals felt. We hit them with a left hook and needed to follow up with a hard right. There would have been no better circumstance to go for 2. They were in disarray and we let our chances fizzle . You have Rodgers as your QB, a hot receiver in Janis and 2 big backs. The offensive line was outstanding. Every situation pointed to a 2 pointer. Sure u may fail but show some guts and faith in ur team to finish it. Additionally u are on the road. To leave ur chances of winning on a coin toss is not the sign of a confident coach. He can say it wasn’t the right option but I say not in hindsight it was the wrong decision. Personally I would have had more respect for him if he chose to go for sudden victory . We were so not even thought of in this game . The moment called for a coach to believe in his team.

I know the one who brought up the 2 field goals instead of touchdown tries from the 1 yard line last year against Seattle might not be a Packer fan as I am but he was right . I thought he should have played to win and not to lose . He had zero guts then also. He makes one of those conversions he scores 7 instead of 6. Would have won in regulation. When u are playing to get in the Super Bowl you better be willing to score 7 and not be satisfied with 3. Go big or stay at home. Both times he was bit in the butt. McCarthy has no balls. I believe those players wanted to win that game at that moment when there was 0:00 on the clock.

No. You don’t go for two, take the tie. You want your opponent to screw up before you do. It’s why golfers elect to let their opponent tee up first in a playoff. The drive may be so bad he can pull out an iron. Don’t put pressure on yourself, make the other guy do it.

What’s the old saying… at home play for a tie, on the road play for the win. Regardless, the Packers defense had played well for most of 3 quarters. In the forth, they began losing coverage on Larry Fitzgerald and again in overtime. None of that matters though. The Packers had numerous opportunities to end Cardinal drives via the INT, but let the ball hit the turf. The game is 60 minutes, not forty five. When opportunity knocks, you have to capitalize. The team didn’t and it was another bitter loss for the team and its fans. I’m now looking forward to the NFL Draft. It will be interesting to see what Green Bay prioritizes. I have to believe they will pick up a wide receiver to replace Jones, if they don’t keep him. They have to get a physical middle linebacker if they plan to move Clay back outside. They need to think about the offensive line and they can’t be totally sold at TE.

Personally, I think going for 2 was the right move, but with the way the OT rules are in the NFL, I can kind of understand. The Packers were undermanned. Their defense had played very well overall, but had been on the field a lot in the 4th quarter. They were getting worn down. I didn’t feel great about our prospects in overtime. But you might win the coin toss and get the ball. If you have a good drive there, take some time off the clock and get some points. The defense could maybe get a break and allow them to make a stop. That’s about the only scenario where I see the Packers winning in OT. You also have to have a play that you feel good about for the 2 point conversion. Cobb was out. It could be that most of their 2 point plays were planned around using him.

ebdug says:
Jan 19, 2016 10:57 PM
No. You don’t go for two, take the tie. You want your opponent to screw up before you do. It’s why golfers elect to let their opponent tee up first in a playoff. The drive may be so bad he can pull out an iron. Don’t put pressure on yourself, make the other guy do it.
——————————————————————————————————————

“…and with the way the Packers offense was moving it, I would’ve bet they would score on their first possession.”
————————————————————————————————————————-

That is exactly why I think they SHOULD have gone for two. If their offense is moving the ball, why wouldn’t they be able to make a 2 yards play?

Besides, before that, on another play they put it all on the line with a 4th down play deep in their own territory, so what’s the difference?

The difference is that was a play to simply survive. But a play from the 2 yard line is a play to win. It’s as simple as that. NOT going for 2 is playing not to lose. That works in regular season when teams are vying for a playoff spot. But once you get in the playoffs, you have to play to win. Period.